This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I will forward an evo-psych explanation that I have found somewhat compelling, while letting you take the opportunity to remember that evo-psych arguments are far less specific or empirically validated than anyone would like:
In the ancestral environment (by which I mean from pre-history to last Tuesday), it was unfortunately common for intergroup violence to culminate in the slaughter of all the men on the losing side, and the lamentation of their women (who were often taken captive and put to reproductive toil, with modern norms of consent not a concern for anyone involved).
Picture yourself as a woman, of reproductive age. You have just been taken captive by Ugg, who has only just finished cleaning his club of the blood and brains that originated from your husband (Grug) and your father and brother (Ooga and Booga respectively). Ugg has, if he's being polite, told you that he's going to take you as his wife. If he is less polite, you have already been raped. Neolithic cavemen or victorious pillagers are not known to be polite, but I do not wish to slander them unnecessarily.
You have very few choices in the matter. Active or passive refusal or disobedience will likely only result you in being beaten +- raped. There is no one in a position to help, and you do not necessarily even think that your fate is morally incorrect or unjust (if you're the introspective type, you might remember the story of how Ooga met Mrs. Ooga, your mother. The circumstances were not that different, even if it feels awful to be on the receiving end.).
If you submit, your odds of going from a glorified concubine or sex slave to a genuine wife (with whatever degree of protection and in-group endorsement that implies) goes up. If you demonstrate enjoyment and do your best to make Ugg happy, he might genuinely grow fond of you, which he is unlikely to do if you fight back. You may end up pregnant with his child (you have little choice in the matter), and a caring husband and father is a better one than one that holds you in contempt. You close your eyes and think of the Dogger Bank (this story predates the formation of the English channel).
Your story is not unique. I have already mentioned the tale of Mrs. Ooga, your mother. This might be the fate of your daughter, and is almost certainly the fate of many of your distant female descendants.
The thing about evolutionary selection pressures is that they do not necessarily act in the direction anyone likes, or endorses on reflection. Another fact about human cognition and social roles is that it easier to feel a certain emotion than it is to consistently fake it. Less cognitively taxing, in the sense that feeling good about your buddies and expressing it naturally is a better signal than smiling at a boss you don't particularly like. The best lies are the ones you internalize, and come to believe sincerely to a degree that no longer feels like lying. It might well no longer even be a lie, it is your honest reaction and desire, even if that is for something others might consider torment.
What are we selecting for? Women, who when in a situation where they perceive that their welfare and wellbeing (and that of their offspring) hinges on staying in the good graces of a male partner: put up, shut up, and genuinely like the abuse, in a seemingly paradoxical yet very true sense. Stockholm syndrome could be adaptive, if your only options are making the best of the city's shitty weather without an opportunity to leave.
This selection pressure and the resulting trait is, of course, clearly not absolute. There are plenty of women who, at least in a modern Western context, will leave an abusive relationship, or seek help from third parties. I dare say that is most women. I think that is not incompatible with my thesis, because evolution often reaches a stable equilibrium with a variety of different traits, some of which are adaptive in certain contexts and not others, but neither of which strictly dominate.
You might just have been an exceptionally unlucky woman. Perhaps the modal woman in your reference group would stand up to an abusive partner. Perhaps they would marshal their blood-kin to step in on their behalf, perhaps they would rely on social shaming. In that situation, having a spine and protecting yourself is compatible with your genes spreading, but in some cases, you must sacrifice the spine to save your life.
Many factors and traits exhibit this phenomenon. Why are there any short men in a world where height is almost always rewarded, even in the distant past? Because height comes at the cost of health, you might starve to death because of the additional baseline metabolic requirements. Sometimes, the Short Kings win and spawn more short kings and queens. Why is every man not an "alpha" male (a term I use as a convenient shorthand, not an endorsement), despite those traits often being attractive? Well, because sometimes being a submissive, obedient man in service to a greater power was beneficial, from the perspective of your genes, perhaps your memes in the context of group selection. Our selection pressures are reduced, but not nonexistent today, so it is easy to forget the time when evolution was more aggressive about quality control (and with a very bottomline take on what constitutes quality, which rarely acknowledges customer satisfaction).
My point is, most of the people reading this take for granted a society with robust social safety nets for battered women. Cultural norms that make them expressly deserving of sympathy and care. This is true in India, but perhaps not in Afghanistan (though even such a patriarchal society might have brothers and fathers stepping in, perhaps because they see it as their patriarchal duty to do so). But there's no dedicated women's shelter around for most of recorded history. Sometimes you must learn to eat shit, say you enjoy the taste, and then, through selection pressures over long eons, end up liking the taste. Unironically. Maybe enthusiastically, albeit with shame. Despite people stopping by and asking "are you okay hun, you know you can just stop, right?" and meaning it.
This explains many things: battered women. Girls who like a domineering and assertive husband. The women who have asked me to choke them, slap them, spit on them, or leave handprints. And those who do not (not that I mind particularly, at least if it doesn't have any serious risk of bodily harm).
Your body and your instincts can be awfully out of date for the environment you find yourself in. You might know that being fired from your job or being ghosted by a date doesn't matter, in the strict sense, but you still feel awful about it. You might spiral into depression or have a breakdown. This is because these were matters of life and death (and sex) for your ancestors. Your genes do try to adapt your phenotype to the environment you find yourself in, but they are very out of their depth.
The usual arguments about superstimuli like porn or calorie dense foods has a corollary: some stimuli today are not as meaningful or compelling as they would be to your ancestors (losing a job, rejection, as I've already said), but were very very bad for you in the past, to the point that your body and mind is primed to panic.
Just to be very clear: this is not a claim about all women, probably not even most women. I do not think that they're all hiding rape fantasies, or that those who do express their fantasies are necessarily cover for a sincere desire to be abused or raped. Or that they would secretly like it, if actual rape happened to them. Explaining something is not the same as condoning it. Evo-psych arguments are notoriously susceptible to overfitting. Judge accordingly.
This doesn’t affect your broader point very much, but it’s a nitpick that bothers me- ‘concubine’ is not a term for ‘sex slave’. Those did(and still do) exist and are not the same thing. A concubine was a woman who was very similar to a wife, but got a worse deal(usually with stuff like divorce, inheritance, etc). In some societies(such as our own) this was a common-ish form of common law marriage and in others this was a way of regulating the mistresses of wealthy men- these were separate institutions which happen to have the same word in English. But they did have a few similarities- it tended to be acceptable to take a lower status(either enslaved or free) woman as a concubine in a way that wasn’t allowed for a wife, they had far fewer protections from domestic violence or divorce(most premodern societies did have some, even if inadequate), and they didn’t get a formal wedding, but lived in the same household as their husband(this was the term used) who had the obligation to support them, but not at the same level as he would a wife.
This was the ancients regulating cohabitation, and in some cases thé man also had a wife in the same household. It was not some foreign institution that was a case of premodern horror imposed by the patriarchy- we embraced the custom when stepping away from the patriarchy, after all.
One case that’s instructive for thinking about this I’ve found has been ancient German history, going back about 2,500 years.
For the women, marriage and children had almost nothing to do with some right of self-determination. It had everything to do with adhering to the social obligations of their forebears and of their descendants, and it was a massive source of their pride. In no way would they have understood those who extolled the virtues of “personal freedom” in this space above everything else. And they fully knew just as we did that marriage and family life is often a major source of stress and pressure. It contains the highest of highs and also the lowest of lows. You even saw this in the Athenian tragedies like Heracleidae:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, this reminds me of a woman I met early one morning when I was waiting for the train for work. She had her whole life packed up in a big suitcase, and was sobbing. I felt bad for her, and asked her if everything was alright, and she started telling me her life story of going from one abusive boyfriend to another. Unfortunately, my train arrived and I had to leave her there, but I do sometimes wonder if some women don't have instincts that laser focus towards guys who will abuse them.
Makes me think of Scott's old Radicalizing the Romanceless post from 2014, and the character of Henry who shows up in Scott's hospital after beating his fifth wife, an enduring pattern for him. Which causes Scott to muse:
I think it is highly plausible that some subset of women have been "messed up" in some evopsych way that isn't super compatible with modern society, but I'm not sure what the best thing to do about it is. Letting people keep making mistakes that their biology tricks them into seems cruel, but being too paternalistic also seems to have serious downsides.
Or they're imprinted on that as ‘how a man acts’. Maybe because daddy did. Unfortunate but true.
More options
Context Copy link
Some women absolutely do (and the men have laser focus on women likely to put up with such abuse). Dalrymple has made a career writing about them. Talk to any cop, prosecutor, or defense attorney, and they can also confirm this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not really. See the Trojan women. They're not going back to be wives, even secondary wives; they're going to be household slaves (and if young/attractive enough, bed slaves as well).
Where that did happen was with the Sabine women, because (1) the Romans had no other women back home to be legitimate wives and (2) certainly after being raped (in the sense of "carried off" and also in the sexual sense) the Sabine women had little choice but to make the best of it with their new husbands. The Sabines did attack Rome to regain their wives and daughters, but the returned women would not have had good lives back home. The unmarried girls likely couldn't ever find husbands, and the married women would have found themselves put aside.
Look at one entire sub-plot in the Mahabharata, where a princess who has been carried off in an abduction marriage and manages to convince the abductor to let her go (who was, in fact, seeking wives for his half-brothers) on the grounds that she was engaged/pre-contracted to another man and loved him.
What happens next? Boyfriend dumps her on the grounds that she's been formally taken as another man's wife. She tries to get various warriors to take up her cause but they all refuse due to fear of the original guy, and eventually she gains the boon that in her next life she will be born as a man and kill him.
That's not "lie back and think of England and you have a good chance of being Mrs. Ugg", because that's not generally how it went.
There is a very good reason why I said the odds of a more favorable outcome go up, rather than making a stronger, deterministic claim in the passage you quoted.
"Good behavior" or submission is no guarantee of good treatment, but I think it is fair to say that it helps on the margin. The typical man coming home with a looted woman does not have three more waiting at home, the maths is unlikely to work that way. The way that royalty treats their new concubines is not representative of the average. My understanding is that even for the Sabine women, the typical Roman kidnapper only got the one, but correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't specifically checked, though this is mostly because I doubt a clear-cut answer is easily available. Even when the kidnapper/victor is successful enough to have multiple female captives, I do not think it is an unjustified leap in logic to think that compliance and feigned/real affection would improve material circumstances on the margin. If your new "husband" has three docile wives already, do you think anyone is going to treat you better for being uppity?
Even within living memory in the West, it is hardly uncommon to hear of women who deplore their abusive husbands but are forced to stay by them because of the financial ruin or social opprobium they would face after separation. Situations like that even happen today, though not nearly as often when Western culture (and much of the world) has tighter welfare nets and feels the duty/need to intervene.
You can find all kinds of abuse on all scales and in every corner between people. What’s relevant is what’s typical and tends to generalize and what is the cause of it.
I lived with a female co-worker after her husband had tragically passed away, for 5 months at her invitation and it seemed like a mutually beneficial arrangement at the time I was approached about it. One of her friends helped to mediate and socially organize things between us, but we hit a rough patch before things even really took off. She was forward at first, asking if there was anything I needed, etc., and I maintained a respectful but independent stance out of the way I’d been raised, along with my own life experience. I was someone who was always trained not to accept help from other people and that your place in life should be determined through your own effort. I’m someone that needs to be worked on very hard into thinking it’s acceptable to say “yes” to somebody.
After we had moved in I was immediately met with a rude awakening from our first direct interaction. I spent the next couple weeks trying to talk to her here and there but always got short and quick answers that were never open ended. I figured she didn’t walk to talk or had other things going on, so I just kept to my side of things and worked on some stuff I already had going. Next few months we rarely saw each other and didn’t speak a single word to one another when we did see each other at home. Again, I figured if she felt like being more open and receptive to talking to me, I’d talk to her. She never did, so I assumed she didn’t want to talk.
The vibe of things felt increasingly stiff between us and one day she tells me something came up and she needs to move out. She broke the 1-year lease we had, so I cleaned up a mattress she lent me, immediately gave it back and left before we both had to be out. I didn’t know when she was looking to leave but I didn’t want to hold the situation hostage if she needed to go quickly. So I just kind of took things at face value. I didn’t want to assume anything.
I actually felt emotionally and physically drawn to her in several respects and took active steps to try and court her after our departure. Giving things the benefit of the doubt. I basically got attacked at every turn. She knew my sibling who was a very troubled person and tragically died of an overdose. My niece got neglected who I’d made frequent attempts to see and spend time with, but they would hang out with each other based on what I’d heard, while my niece inadvertently would up getting abandoned to fend for herself.
I bought her things. Flowers. Chocolate. Got her Christmas gifts. Invited her out with other work friends. Tried texting her, protected her at one point and all she ever did was ignore me whenever we crossed paths or privately attack me for it to her friends. She said she didn’t want to be my friend, criticized me for having a dysfunctional relationship with my sibling, said I had a dark cloud over me (first time I'd ever heard of that in my life; unlike my sibling strangely, who she had no problem associating with; however that’s supposed to work; but ok) when I’m in good standing with most everyone I know, have no enemies, never touched drugs, doesn’t drink, etc. I just don’t understand people like this. It’s unbelievably rude and disrespectful; and all I ever did was treat her good and care about her. I didn’t care though because I was in an irrational haze about her. Love for a man is when you find one perfect detail in a woman.
Sounds like a similar experience to one I had a ways back.
Helped a person who was going through a seemingly difficult "failure to launch" phase. Stuck in her parents' house, going to school but having no plan beyond that, minimum wage job, hugely introverted (main social group was people she played games with online), but seemingly smart and personable, if a bit emotionally stunted.
Got her a place to stay for a bargain price, plugged her into a new job, got her involved at my gym, invited her out to hang with my friend group, basically handed her every single tool to form her own path, get out from under the parents' thumb, make things work.
And yes, I was romantically interested but also very wary of forming any actual connection if she wasn't really fully 'mature' enough to have some semblance of responsibility for her own self.
The unfortunate but not surprising thing is she didn't change her core habits in the slightest. And remained tied to her parents (mother, in particular) at the hip in terms of never EVER doing anything that might upset mom, and basically letting mom decide things for her at every stage. And she was prone to attracting some relatively unsavory types of men into her orbit... and then completely rejecting them if they tried to escalate? I'm not talking thugs or drug addicts. But like, dudes with minimum wage jobs who ride motorcyles and were physically attractive but simply did not have their life together.
She seemed to be completely unable to detect when a guy was trying to get in her pants until they were actually reaching for the zipper, at which point there'd be an intense negative reaction. Like, she really wanted to be attractive to men, and got very upset when she actually attracted them in.
The situation lasted about a year or so then with relatively little warning, in quick succession, she moved back in with her parents, started pursuing another degree (this one was at least practical), cut off all the friends I had introduced, quit the job (almost but not quite burning the bridge), and as far as I can tell has returned to being a recluse except for her classmates.
And the added insult, her parents informally banned me from their business establishment for reasons that remain opaque to me, since we'd gotten along just fine for a long time. It was quite abrupt. I wonder what she told them.
This was only like the third rudest thing anybody had ever done to me.
And thus I've reached a point in my life where I do not feel the need to assist anyone get up out of their life circumstances other than opening doors for them if they seem to need it and present the capacity to carry themselves once I help them get the leg up.
There were other things that happened in my case as well, but she burned every bridge I tried building for her. I found through her friend that I guess the reason she moved out was she heard from other coworkers that she lived with me and that it was my apartment she was living in. Basically the exact opposite of what the living arrangement was. I never said any such thing to anyone. It’s just people making stuff up and gossip and rumors. I actually wonder if people were going around and spreading information maliciously and that was a worry of mine at first and I didn’t exactly want everyone knowing about it. I was wary about telling other coworkers. I asked one of them I knew well about his opinion at that time but that was it. When I got word she told people we were living together I figured she was alright with having others know, so I stopped being guarded about it after that; but I never went around telling others. If they asked about it I’d clarify things, but that was it. If she was hearing things from people, the mature thing to do would’ve been to text or call me and tell me that she wants to talk later; but she never did. I’m not someone that goes around making judgment calls with only one side of the story. I’m too disciplined for that. Especially when others are going around saying random things. When it really has the ability to negatively impact someone, I always tell people you’re going to have to give me evidence of what you’re saying. Otherwise it’s just rumors. I don’t react purely on rumors.
Even after everything was clarified though, she’d give me the cold shoulder. On one instance I remember walking into a room where it was just her and I calmly said to her that me and a couple other people had plans a few weeks out to go do something fun and said it’d be nice if she could come. She backed up away from me and gave me a very stern and angry look she couldn’t, that she had other plans. I didn’t reply at all and just turned around and walked out of the room. I always suspected she had a little anxiety so I just completely dropped it and didn’t want to bother her. There was also no physical equality between her and I. She was under 5 feet all, I’m much taller than the average man. I could easily accidentally knock her out if we came around the corner at the same time. I wouldn’t even see her.
But for months after that she’d do this thing where she’d leave her workspace and seemingly hover near my area where she could be seen by me, but she’d never make eye contact or talk to me at all. Almost like she wanted to bait and keep me on the hook. That was obvious to me and I noticed it immediately when it started happening. I actually noticed all kinds of things she and the others she talked to in our department would say, I just pretended not to see or notice, but I saw everything; I just acted completely stupid. If she doesn’t want to make a move or say anything they I won’t say anything back. I already played my hand.
Then this kid who was much younger than her and I, eventually gets hired and expresses an interest in her. She starts leaving her workspace, doing his tasks, buying him coffee, making plans to hang out, coordinating their schedules to have the same days off, etc. And I always knew when she told me she had plans that that was probably false, because she told me when we lived together that her plans were always changing.
One day I come around a certain area of the department and I see her hiding behind some big equipment with him standing real close next to her. As I come around she quickly bolts from his side, far away as if she was caught doing something she didn’t want to be seen doing. I keep having to come around, second time she’s standing close to him but her eyes are pointed down and she gets very quiet, third time he is completely gone and she moves more into visibility as if she wants me to see her and to think it’s all normal. Next couple days she puts on this very professional outfit as if she wants to convince people there’s nothing going on because she’s professional but then stops after a couple days.
The basic read I had on it is it’s simply a bid for validation. It’s just a costume. Pretend to be one way while behind the scenes being another. If that was truly what she was about, that’s one thing but in this case, I don’t think there was anything genuine or virtuous about it.
I just about done at that point, but towards the end of one of my shifts at work, I caught her friend abruptly just before our shift ended. I didn’t want to tell her I wanted to talk to her about so-and-so ahead of time, because if I did, 100% she’d find out about it and they’d probably coordinate about what to say if I ask certain things. So I made sure I caught her off guard. I asked a couple questions and her friend told me she was in a relationship with someone now and it’s unrelated to anyone worker related.
Regardless of what’s true or not in her case is irrelevant at this point. A woman who would behave as she does on the work floor is not someone I would consider trustworthy. Fooling around with a young boy at work, leading with the idea in everyone’s mind that you’re that kind of girl, behaving in these hot and cold suggestive ways, etc. Especially when you supposedly have a boyfriend? Not a good look.
The problem is more fundamental than someone who is acting sketchy. Once you start giving someone reasons to doubt and distrust you, you get a reputation; and you’re not going to get the benefit of doubt, even if you’re not doing anything wrong. The fact that you have to do ‘any’ thinking about them, at all, for even one second; that’s the problem. There’s a trail of suspicion a person like that leaves behind them, and there will always be a question mark above their head, no matter what else they do. That’s why moral consistency is so important. I don’t put myself in compromising situations that cause people to doubt me. Even if I know I’m not doing anything wrong, those closest to me can’t know what’s going on inside my head. All they know is what they see; and how they interpret my actions determines what kind of relationship we have. If I want to remain on good terms with them I have to cut out the parts that jeopardize that relationship. At the very least you have to keep up appearances.
People these days have a “live for the moment,” “today is all that exists,” type attitude. One criticism I got was that I was “too intense.” I guess that’s a synonym on some level for “too serious.” And that’s actually accurate to a degree. Yes, I do take life seriously; because I don’t take people for granted. They could disappear tomorrow. I could get hit by a bus. You never know. So don’t waste it. When I’m with someone, I take them very seriously. I don’t trivialize their emotions or how they feel, I truly try hard to make them happy because it makes me happy. I don’t mess around and play games with the things that are important between us. I intensely dislike people that treat relationships like it's some kind of game or personal vanity project for them. When I tell them I have feelings for them I'm dead ass serious about it. That’s part of the reason why I think so many relationships fail.
Your experience and mine definitely sound very similar. I’m sorry that happened to you.
People often wonder why decency is dead. I knew a number of very good people growing up who eventually threw their hands up and abandoned the values they were raised with. Even they were forced to come to reality. It’s disheartening when you’ve seen people who were once so honorable and full of life, succumb overtime to screwing everyone else over in pursuit of their self-interest.
Good people exist all over the place but they have their conduct beaten out of them through experience. She at least didn't have to be rude and disrespectful to me. I only ever treated her good. It’s nobody else’s fault but my own though. I was in love and I didn’t see things for what they really were.
The one thing a sense of secular virtue gives you though is peace of mind, because an honest man has nothing to fear. I’m knowledgeable enough and have the connections where if I wanted to do some highly unethical shit on my own, I succeed and do very well. The only problem is I have dignity and I know I’m a good man and I really wish I wasn’t.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This woman who likely never understood the dating landscape and never ''came into her own'' felt like she had lost the ability to steer the wheel of her own ship and got desperate. There is an element of searching for structure and direction in abuse and mistreatment when one feels like they aren't fit to maintain their own proforma, which for a multitude of reasons most women will end up succumbing to. For the neophyte in the alien territories of heterosexual unions, the dangerous man is best kept close, for evil can't strike you down if you manage to somehow keep it close by (think of the Wattpad Mafia boss fantasy), the victim woman's inertia attracts the abusive man's intensity, the willing pit finds the meteoroid that will crash into it. The man also seem to have brought social capital, in her mind, it likely went somewhat like this; the forlorn maiden at the end of her supposed bloom has been chosen by the ''Life of the Party'' social butterfly of a man who has so many options, yet went for this lucky girl. Lots of ways this likely made perfect rational sense in her mind, with the actual abuse not completely unexpected but part of her internally fantasized prophecy, one that is built on the idea of perpetual doom and gloom, and also one that she likely will never admit to, out loud. This still isn't a complete loss, except for the psychologie torture, though part of me wonders if she would simply fill that pit inside her regardless of what life configuration she would have wounded up in, if not for this. This of course isn't condoning the real abuse she likely dealt with, I am merely attempting to understand why she did what she did, despite the gut instinct telling her not to.
More options
Context Copy link
The idea that the human ancestral environment was like this always seems like a mere just-so story to me. It seems sensible in our setting to believe that those who live in a state of nature outside of the reach of civilisation will behave in this way, because this is what we observe about people who live like that, but people who live outside of civilisation in the modern world are not a representative sample, and could easily have been selected for the sort of rapist anarchic tendencies you describe.
An explanation that requires much less in the way of assumptions about male/female relations in the age of Grug is that in a slightly more violent, slightly more anarchic society, the same guy who is an asshole to you is more likely to be good at being an asshole for you, in a setting where being an asshole is a good way to win competitions for limited resources. That would also explain the anecdotal evidence that women from slightly more violent and anarchic modern societies like Russia, the Levant or just about anywhere in Africa show a more pronounced preference for "bad boys" who may also be violent to them, over nice guys who will be continuously sweet and wont to get beaten up and robbed by the "bad boys" in those countries. In fact, Ireland as of 20 years ago probably also belongs in that list?
I am not claiming that this is a universal experience. I am only claiming that situations like this can and do happen, including in well documented histories as well at present, in the parts of the world that can be impolitely but accurately be described as shitholes. And we know the past was much more violent than the present, or the fact that far fewer men passed on their lineage than women did, or the recent evidence that Neanderthal-Cro Magnon crossbreeding usually involved Neanderthal men and CM women. I wonder why.
You don't even need the maximal "consent to rape or die" version. Even the ability to tolerate and ameliorate flawed men who are otherwise good providers is adaptive. As you've noted, societal norms didn't even switch to condemning such behavior till well within living memory.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's worth pointing out that one of the most genetically successful women in history was Genghis Khan's mother who was bride-kidnapped roughly 1000 years ago.
There is no end of nuance I could add, but this is a good point. I might as well mention that it's very common for the traits and tendencies expressed by genes to vary according to the sex of the organism that receives them (even if this is not an absolute either). The same genes on a different sex chromosome can do different things. So Genghis might well have had a submissive mother, while the same genes might not have manifested in him but might have in his daughters or sisters (or have been outcompeted by the tendencies from his paternal lineage).
The same goes for Ugg and Bride of Ugg. She might hate being raped and enslaved. But her sons might well be perfectly happy to do the raping and enslaving, propagating her genes as well. The question, which requires a lot of empirical grounding to answer, is which tendency wins out overall. But there isn't a unique winner at the very least, we observe a lot of diversity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link